Justice Chandrachud Tests Positive For COVID; Supreme Court Defers Suo Moto Case Hearing
The Supreme Court has deferred the hearing on the suo moto case on COVID issues until further notice after Justice DY Chandracahud tested positive for COVID-19.A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat was slated to hear the suo moto case In Re Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic tomorrow.A notice published in the Supreme...
The Supreme Court has deferred the hearing on the suo moto case on COVID issues until further notice after Justice DY Chandracahud tested positive for COVID-19.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat was slated to hear the suo moto case In Re Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic tomorrow.
A notice published in the Supreme Court website stated that one of the judges of the bench has tested positive for COVID-19 and the hearing has been deferred. Fresh date of hearing will be notified later.
On the previous date, May 10, the bench could not hear the case after the server of the Supreme Court control room, which handles the Video Conferencing, developed technical difficulties. Therefore, the bench had adjourned the hearing to tomorrow, May 13.
On April 30, the bench had raised several pertinent queries regarding the Centre's vaccination policy, distribution of essential medicines and oxygen allocation to states. The bench had made a prima facie observation that the Centre's vaccination was detrimental to the right to health of citizens and required a revisit to make it conform to the mandate of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court had also suggested that the Centre should explore options like compulsory licensing over COVID vaccines and drugs, and that the vaccines should be centrally procured from manufacturers.
In response, the Centre has filed an affidavit, saying that its vaccination policy was formulated on the basis of widespread consultations with experts and stakeholders, and was therefore conforming with Articles 14 and 21.
The centre also resisted judicial review of the policy by saying "any overzealous, though well-meaning judicial intervention may lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences".
Rational & Equitable? Experts Analyze Centre's Affidavit Which Defends COVID Vaccination Policy